While I read the De oratore, I reached very similar conclusions to those made by Katie and Thomas. I really loved both of their explanations of this progression. Katie compared the two works to a bicycle with training wheels and a regular bike, suggesting that there is a same basic idea, but a different style applied. Thomas noted how "growing up" may have helped Cicero's opinion deepen and expand. I appreciated both of these explanations. While reading, what stood out to me the most was that the topics were more evolved than those expressed in De inventione in that he relied more heavily upon a different topic of invention; testimony (specifically that of authority figures). In reading other student's posts, most readers seem to have appreciated this alteration. However, I definitely agree with the comment Brooke made on Thomas' post. I like the concise, direct manner in which the De inventione was given. This helped me to focus on what was being said but also empowered me as a reader to apply those techniques of rhetoric in my own way rather than being spoon fed the "right" application by the professionals. I felt like the name dropping in De oratore was distracting and in the end, I felt like I had no freedom in application. Perhaps though, this feeling of limitation is due to the fact that there is an age difference between the Cicero who wrote the oratore and the Macey who read it. The Cicero who wrote the inventione had the advantage of being the same age as the Macey who read it. Thus, while I read, I got the sense that I was reading a text by someone who was more on my level and I didn't feel forced to believe he was right. However, in the oratore, I had the feeling throughout that I was listening to an adult who believed they had a perfect understanding of the subject matter, and who cared more about me believing as they do, independent of any thinking on my own, rather than helping me develop my own cognitive reasoning. (Has anyone else had a past experience with a professor in college who was like that? I know I have.) As a result, I think I was less receptive. Who knows, maybe the Macey 20 years down the road will be more receptive to the style of the De oratore.
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Empowering the Reader
While I read the De oratore, I reached very similar conclusions to those made by Katie and Thomas. I really loved both of their explanations of this progression. Katie compared the two works to a bicycle with training wheels and a regular bike, suggesting that there is a same basic idea, but a different style applied. Thomas noted how "growing up" may have helped Cicero's opinion deepen and expand. I appreciated both of these explanations. While reading, what stood out to me the most was that the topics were more evolved than those expressed in De inventione in that he relied more heavily upon a different topic of invention; testimony (specifically that of authority figures). In reading other student's posts, most readers seem to have appreciated this alteration. However, I definitely agree with the comment Brooke made on Thomas' post. I like the concise, direct manner in which the De inventione was given. This helped me to focus on what was being said but also empowered me as a reader to apply those techniques of rhetoric in my own way rather than being spoon fed the "right" application by the professionals. I felt like the name dropping in De oratore was distracting and in the end, I felt like I had no freedom in application. Perhaps though, this feeling of limitation is due to the fact that there is an age difference between the Cicero who wrote the oratore and the Macey who read it. The Cicero who wrote the inventione had the advantage of being the same age as the Macey who read it. Thus, while I read, I got the sense that I was reading a text by someone who was more on my level and I didn't feel forced to believe he was right. However, in the oratore, I had the feeling throughout that I was listening to an adult who believed they had a perfect understanding of the subject matter, and who cared more about me believing as they do, independent of any thinking on my own, rather than helping me develop my own cognitive reasoning. (Has anyone else had a past experience with a professor in college who was like that? I know I have.) As a result, I think I was less receptive. Who knows, maybe the Macey 20 years down the road will be more receptive to the style of the De oratore.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Although I focused my post on the "improvements" found in Cicero's later work, De Oratore, I must not say that I am relegated strictly to just the one idea I expressed. You made a very good point in this post, channeling my own incoherent thoughts into what it was I could not put my finger on with regards to De Inventione. It is very true that the simple, straightforward nature of De Inventione provided me as a reader with (admittedly) a more enjoyable read. I'm actually really bothered by intense roundaboutness, so Cicero's first work secretly appeals to me more. In De Oratore, the words do impose a sense of secure knowledge on the matter, but the back and forth twists and turns are...well...a major turnoff. I hate it when professors are indirect, or heavily impose the notion that their view is best and all others are inferior, particularly in the *cough* religion department *cough.* Shh! Don't tell anyone!
ReplyDeleteI agree with your idea about De inventione and De oratore being on different levels. As I read them, i'm not certain that they were ever made to be on the same level. One was written very systematically, the other a completely different level of complexity. In Cicero's time, as you can tell by De Oratore, that kind of conversation took extreme talent and others were constantly debating and picking one another's brains on a topic. It seemed that one was always in need of a quick wit. In today's society we don't think of debate and rhetoric as the type of thing you do while relaxing under a tree over a holiday break.
ReplyDeleteI found your post really insightful! I like that you compared Cicero's age when writing the pieces to your own age. I wrote in my post though that I disagreed and that I thought that De oratore was easier to understand because he was using what he had learned through the practice of it rather than just hypothetically talking about the different terms that he could use in the future. Great post though!
ReplyDelete